J. B. Jeyaretnam
Singapore
“And even if he did not know, as the Court of Appeal said, he was wilfully blind to that fact. This cannot be a defence because you cannot prove knowledge on the part of the accused. But what the court can do is to look at all the circumstances of the case and then conclude that it is beyond reasonable doubt that he had that knowledge.”
“Sir, as I now understand it, the payment to Mr Olds was compensation or gratuity, and not salary for the year 2000. If it was gratuity or compensation, may I ask whether there was any term in the contract of employment with him for the payment of gratuity, how long was he employed for, and why did he leave?”
“Maybe there are other areas in which we can think of similar useful schemes so that those who are unable to upgrade themselves sufficiently can still have good employment. It is a complex problem. And I think all Ministries and economic agencies would have to think harder how to address this problem.”
“May I make it clear that I shall talk about the aspects of the case which should have been considered by the court. So, in that way, it might reflect on the court's decision. But I do want the Cabinet, when it comes to advising the President on the clemency petition that had been sent to him, to take these points into consideration.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, with respect, I do not quite understand your restriction because, as I understand it, all court proceedings are now over. So there are no pending proceedings in court. The court is now functus officio. Mr Deputy Speaker: You did not listen to me carefully.”
“Mr Noris Ong Chin Guan asked the Minister for Manpower, given the current economic climate, will his Ministry consider encouraging local employers to give priority to employing Singaporeans who can perform equivalent jobs, including our healthy elderly, rather than to resort to engaging foreign employees too readily.”
The complete record
Every one of 4,058 lines we hold for J. B. Jeyaretnam, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 80 of 82.
“I do not remember having seen this letter at all in my office.”
“I do not know what stage this matter has reached, whether there has been any payment or anything on this. Of course, there is this letter. I have raised this matter because of the appeals I have had as the MP for Anson.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, yes, of course, it is a letter from my firm. It was signed by my assistant. May I continue, Sir? I myself - An hon. Member: Not aware?”
“Yes, Sir. [Question No. 2 taken. Later - ]”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I am getting used to all these innuendoes and insinuations which, I am glad to say, are completely ignored by the people outside. But be that as it may, may I first put my supplementary question to the Minister who answered the question because he has not answered my question? Does he, first of all, agree that this makes nonsense of the Government's policy about the sacredness of family life and of the husband and wife being allowed to live together? Secondly, to answer the Minister's question, I have, as a Member of Parliament, raised about six matters concerning non-citizens who have married Singapore citizens and who have been asked to leave the country.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, he talks about work permit conditions. My question is this. I want a straight answer to a straight question, Mr Speaker, Sir. Is it the policy of the Ministry to deport the wife of a Singapore citizen albeit when she has broken the condition of her work permit under which she was allowed to live in Singapore? May I have an answer to that question?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, will the Minister please answer my question?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, is it the policy of the Ministry to forcibly deport a foreign wife who was previously here on a work permit but who entered into a marriage with a Singapore citizen?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, they were, I think, work permit holders. But the fact remains that they were living in Singapore, and -”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the Minister has differentiated between non-citizen husbands of Singapore citizens and non-citizen wives of Singapore citizens. If I may take the position of the non-citizen wife. The Minister has said that each case depends on its merits. That begs the question, Mr Speaker, Sir. I want to know what the policy is. The Minister has stated that we have to make sure that the husband is able to maintain the wife. That must equally apply whether or not the wife is a Singapore citizen. The husband is under a duty to maintain the wife under the Women's Charter. The Minister has spoken of permanent residence being granted to non-citizen wives. Is he aware that the wives of Singapore citizens have been forcibly ordered to leave this country and kept out because they have contracted marriage with Singapore citizens?”
“Would the Minister, within this half a minute, tell us by how much it was reduced?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, perhaps it does not arise under this question, but with your permission, may I ask, as a supplementary question, whether the Minister has now got the answer to the question I asked him yesterday?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I am aware of this policy. My question was: how does the HDB justify this policy? Sir, I know of one instance. A man working for the Ministry of the Environment for a number of years - he is a Government employee - is a Singapore citizen and he married another Singapore resident, but she is not a Singapore citizen, a Malaysian woman. They have been here for many, many years. The quarters he is occupying is to be demolished to make way for redevelopment. The poor man has been applying for accommodation in HDB quarters but has been turned down. What does the HDB or the Government expect people in this situation to do? A man who is a Singapore citizen and who has given years of service to the Government - his crime would appear to be that he married a Malaysian woman who has been resident in Singapore. What does the HDB and the Government propose to do in such cases? The Immigration Department refuses his wife permanent residence. What is the man going to do?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, again I am indebted to the Minister for his very lengthy statement about the principles. No one is quarrelling with the principles. Let us get that clear. What I want to know is: what is the Government proposing to do with this man? They have had five years of investigation, five years of asking for his documents but he has not produced them. What do you propose to do? Just give us a plain answer.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, with your permission, may I ask a supplementary question? I am indebted to the Minister of State but I am afraid he has not answered my question. He has given us a very lengthy statement. We all know the old game that if you cannot answer a question, you put another question to the man who asked you the question. My question is this, if I may repeat again, Mr Speaker, Sir. Is there not a serious danger of this doctor being wrong in his diagnosis? And what is the safeguard provided in such a case? Is there an appeal to an independent medical tribunal which will look into this matter and satisfy itself that the diagnosis is correct?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, a supplementary question on the safe- guards under the Misuse of Drugs Act. The Minister states that the law is very clear. That it is clear is plain to anyone who reads the law. The question is: is there not a danger of innocent persons being detained under this law? The Minister talks about medical examination. He is not able to tell this House what exactly the medical examination consists of. As I understand it, Mr Speaker, Sir, the examination is left in the hands of one doctor who is attached to the rehabilitation centre. What is the precaution taken against the diagnosis of this doctor being wrong? Would the Minister tell this House what safeguards has a man got, who thinks he has been wrongly accused of being a drug addict when he knows that he has never consumed any drug in all his life? What safeguard is there of challenging this doctor's opinion? Is there an appeal to a medical tribunal consisting of people who know something about drug addiction, besides the doctor at the drug rehabilitation centre?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, before I answer the Hon. Minister of State on his comments, may I ask my questions first? The Minister speaks of sufficient safeguards for persons detained under the Misuse of Drugs Act. He says they are either given a urine test or subjected to a medical examination. Would he tell this House whether there are any persons who are detained, whose urine tests have proved to be negative and whose blood tests have proved to be negative? There are persons who are detained, for whom neither a urine test nor a blood test was done. Would he also tell this House what is the medical examination that is conducted of a person before an order is made by the Director of the Central Narcotics Bureau?”
“Sir, as I have said, I find lots of things in this Budget Statement which are good. I cannot pretend to advise the Minister on the economic measures that have been taken, and in my humble opinion they are very good. But what I quarrel with is the distribution of this economic growth. I say, there has been an unfair, unequal distribution of the economic growth and, for that reason, Mr Speaker, Sir, if only for that reason, I shall vote against the Statement.”
“Yes, Sir. Mr Speaker, Sir, craving your indulgence, if I may now turn to the tax reliefs, The Hon. Minister spoke of them as the most exciting part but perhaps not the most important part of the Budget Statement. But as has been pointed out by another hon. Member, the tax changes are to many the most important part of the Budget. What do we find? We find no increases in taxes and the Hon. Minister has announced that he is giving four concessions. Now, it does not need very much examination to see that all these reliefs that have been announced by the Hon. Minister will benefit not the lower income group; they will benefit not our workers who have contributed to this economic growth of which we are all so proud; they will benefit, in the main, people higher up in the tax bracket. How many of our workers contribute more than $5,000 in CPF contributions in a year? So where is it going to benefit them? On the residential properties exemption, as has been pointed out, how many of our lower income groups have properties worth more than $600,000? So let us not try and pretend that these concessions are going to benefit the majority of our citizens. They will not. They will only benefit a minority, a small minority at that. Against this, Mr Speaker, Sir, on Wednesday, 3rd March, we saw a Bill passed at its Third Reading giving back something like $81 million of our moneys, as I said then, to people who had enough and to spare. It is against that that we should look at the reliefs that are given now: $81 million to people who do not need the money.”
“Are we not bringing about an artificial shortage of workers and an artificial shortage of materials needed for our most important area of construction, that is, public housing, where we need to house our workers? I find that buildings which have many more years of life are torn down just because the owners feel that the land is under-utilized. It may be that it is under-utilized, maybe they think they are not getting enough returns. So we find buildings like the Chartered Bank in Battery Road, the Hongkong & Shanghai Bank in Collyer Quay and the Orchard in Orchard Road which have many more years of life to come, are all taken down. Is there not a considerable waste in all this - tearing down of buildings that are still good - all in the name of progress? It is all right if it does not have any ill-effect on members of the society, but it has ill-effect as the Member for Whampoa has pointed out. All this has led to an increase in the price of homes for our workers. Again, repeating what the Member for Whampoa has said, should we not have some priority in our construction?”
“There is, in other countries, legislation against unfair dismissal, where the companies can be ordered to take back the employee, the worker, where the tribunal is satisfied that there has been an unfair dismissal of the worker. But more of it later. Some speakers here have spoken of the unhappiness, and I have come across it myself, Mr Speaker, Sir, caused by the way the NWC second tier has been implemented. Is it not time that perhaps further thought be given to the second tier increases which have caused a lot of unhappiness among our workers? There is yet another way by which our workers may be encouraged to give of their best, and that is, the provision of homes for them and homes as near as possible to their place of work. Has the Government got any plans, any policy, to try (it may not be possible to do this in every case) to arrange so that workers live as close as possible to their place of work? There is also the question of rent. I shall have more to say about this when we come to debate on the Ministry of National Development. But I would, at the moment, commend to the Members of this House what has been said by the hon. Member for Whampoa. He has spoken of the rising costs of construction brought about by over-building in Singapore. He has asked, and I repeat his question: "Why is it necessary to have all these buildings going up at one and the same time?" He spoke of the Marina Centre, Raffles City, hotels, shopping complexes. An hon. Member: Pulau Bukom.”
“It is only by encouraging our workers to move to wherever they think they can acquire better skills because of better opportunities provided so that they can give of their best and learn more skills, that productivity would be increased in the end. Has the Government got any plans about equity sharing by workers in the companies they work in? Should we not be thinking along those lines? Even if it is not something that we can enforce today or tomorrow, should we not be thinking about giving our workers a share in the equity so that they have a stake in the company in which they are working, thus making it obvious to them that their welfare, the increase in their living standards, their being able to lead happier, better lives, are tied up with the company's success because of their share in the company's equity? There is the other factor about their tenure of office. I shall have more to say about this, Mr Speaker, Sir, when we come to debate the Ministry of Labour's estimates. But suffice it for me to say at this moment that under the present Employment Act, under our enlightened labour laws, our workers have no tenure of service. I have had the unpleasant or unhappy task of having to advise people who, having worked 15 or 20 years with a company, suddenly find themselves being handed a letter one morning to say that their services were no longer needed, and that they might now leave and they would be paid four weeks' wages in lieu of notice. "Goodbye. Wish you better success so me-where else." This is what our worker finds he is entitled to under the law for his 20 years of service. What has the Govern ment got to say about this? Is it not time that we provided some guaranteed tenure of service for our workers who have given faithful, loyal service to the company?”
“It is the other less tangible, but just as important, considerations that govern the motivation of the worker or any person before he identifies himself with whatever he is doing. I ask, Sir, what plans has the Government got to motivate our workers? I find on col. 539 of the Budget Statement this statement by the Minister that the National Productivity Council "is examining how workers can be encouraged to identify themselves more closely with the company they work in by means of company-based welfare benefits and other measures." Sir, if productivity is essential to our economic growth, if productivity makes the difference between succeeding or failing, this motivation cannot be left to companies. The Government must set the lead and must lay down the proper guidelines for getting the best from our workers. So I ask: what plans has the Government got to motivate our workers? There have been over the last years steps taken to discourage our workers from transferring their services from one employer to another, job-hopping as it has been called. Workers have been penalized for job-hopping. I would ask the Hon. Minister to consider whether this restraint - apart from it being a restraint on the freedom of the worker to take his services wherever he pleases and to offer it to whoever pays him best - is not also a restraint on improving productivity, on getting the best out of our workers? If we are going to tie our workers down to companies where they are employed, regardless of whether the company pays them well or adopts techniques to improve productivity, what inducement will there be for the company to improve productivity by introducing measures of its own? Should it not be the other way, Mr Speaker, Sir?”
“'and management who will decide whether or not Singapore continues to thrive in the 1980s or begin the slippery slide to disorder, unemployment and stagnation.' There you find due recognition and high praise of what our workers have contributed to the building of our society in Singapore, to this economic growth that we are all so proud of, so that in the statistics of the world Singapore may be shown as an economic miracle, "Singapore has achieved, in the face of all these, this economic progress." But let us not forget those who made this possible. I am not saying, far be it for me to say, that the management, capital, the people with monies, had no part in this economic growth. Of course, they have. But let us not forget at the same time, whilst heaping praise on all this capital, investment and management, the contribution made by our workers to the economic growth in which, as I have demonstrated, they would appear to have benefited very little, if not none at all. A lot of this economic growth would appear to have gone to people who have the money, who do not need the money, and very little of it, if at all, went to those who are really in need of the money. He speaks of the need to properly motivate our workers. May I ask what plans has the Government got to motivate our workers? A person can only give of his best when he is properly motivated and led, and the motive cannot and does not always rest on monetary awards or monetary benefits. There are other considerations that are just as important before a worker identifies himself with the work that he is doing and gives of his best. It is not just monetary awards.”
“It was a forum on the issues facing Singapore in the 1980s, and the Minister speaking at the forum on 11th December 1981 had this to say about our workers, and I quote him: 'When properly motivated and led, the Singapore worker is a formidable force. He has shown repeatedly in the last two decades that he is quick to learn, ready to pick up new skills and willing to work hard to build a better life for himself and his children. When put to the test, I believe that our workers will not be found wanting in determination or ability.' Further down, he says: 'it is ultimately the Government's responsibility to point the direction, set the parameters and give a push where necessary. But it is the workers -' And I pause here, Mr Speaker, Sir, and I am obliged to him that he puts the workers first. An hon. Member: Workers, not Workers Party!”
“Yes, it has been so well explained that CASE accepts it. There is no answer to that. I would again commend to the Hon. Minister and to the future Ministers who may be presenting the Budget that perhaps they should also take the views of others and one area where they can profitably take the views is the housewife. Perhaps it should be made mandatory or compulsory for Ministers who present the Budget to go round and ask the housewife how she has fared over the last year in trying to make ends meet, the family's needs. I do not propose to make an analysis of all the measures that the Minister has outlined and which the Government had taken to improve our economic growth. I have no quarrel with that, but there are one or two things that I would like to touch on. One of the recurring themes in the Minister's statement is the need to increase our productivity. That I suppose needs no saying again. We find the Minister and several hon. Members in this House speaking of the need to increase our productivity. There are two partners in this productivity. There is, of course, the management and then there is the other partner, the worker. The Minister has acknowledged to some extent, but perhaps if I may say so a little grudgingly, the contribution made by the workers in Singapore to our economic growth. I quote him: 'A large part of this came from the efforts of the individual Singaporeans in responding to economic restructuring. They worked harder and smarter than the year before and acquired new skills.' Sir, the Minister was less grudging of the contribution made by our workers when he spoke at a University forum last year.”
“But when I find that the Government puts up its fees and charges, there is not a squeak from CASE. An hon. Member: It has been well explained!”
“So this increase of 10% hits them very, very badly because about half of their income has to go on food. If you now find that there is a 10% increase over what they spent on food in the previous year and if you add to that the CPF increase of 4%, where is the income growth for this group of workers? They have no growth in their real income, and it is my respectful suggestion that it is very possible that they have suffered a cut in their real income, not an increase, because the inflation rates that are given out in these graphs and surveys talk of the general average increase. But the person who actually spends, who has to meet rising prices, knows to his or her pain that the increases go beyond the 8.2% that the graphs talk about. The Hon. Minister said that he has taken the views of various business groups, NTUC, CASE and the University. Barring the business groups, I wonder who he talked to in the NTUC. Was it the Secretary-General of the NTUC, another Minister in the Government that he talked to, to find out the views of the workers? Did the Minister try to collate and gather the views of the workers on the factory floor? Did he find out how they felt about the previous year, about their real income growth, about the benefits that they have had, about whether they have had any greater share of the cake that they have had to bake for the society? Then he said he spoke to CASE. I do not want to belittle what this organization is doing. I find it very vocal and very good, salutary, when it comes to protesting against any increases in the private sector. When a cup of coffee goes up by five cents, you find CASE very vocal about it and, rightly so, inquiring as to why a cup of coffee has to cost another five cents more.”
“But there must be many hundreds of our workmen who have had no increase over the year in their nominal salaries, because I need not remind the House that the NWC increases are not implemented by all employers. There is no sanction for their implementation by all employers. And it will be interesting, Mr Speaker, to know what percentage of our workforce in this country has benefited by the NWC increases from the time that they were first implemented in 1974. But leaving apart the thousands of our workers who may have had no increase at all in their nominal wages, let us look at those who had their wage increases because of the NWC awards which were implemented by the employers. The average wage increase, as I have stated and what one would find from the Economic Survey for 1981, would appear to be 14%. What is the real income growth? You have, as against that 14%, an increase in the contribution that has to be made by the employee, i.e. the worker, to the Central Provident Fund, That increase was 4% of his wages. So that reduced the annual wage increase to 10%. Then we find that the average inflation growth was 8.2%. So if you add 4% to 8.2%, you get 12.2%, leaving a possible real income growth of 1.8% in this sector. But even that, Mr Speaker, does not present a true picture because when we talk about the growth of inflation at 8.2%, we are talking about the general growth. But we do know, and as borne out by the Economic Survey, that it was in the area of foodstuffs that prices rose very sharply; and food prices went up 10% over the last year. Again, it needs no saying that when you come down to the working class, to the people with lower incomes, they spend a greater proportion of their salaries on food than on anything else.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, this vision of the society must be a vision that is common to all members of the society. It must be a vision that is common not only to the wealthy, the young and the able bodied, but also to the poor, the old, the sick, the needy, however inconvenient they may be to the Government's vision of a rugged society. Whatever the goals, however they may be defined from the Government side or from the Opposition side, I take it we are all agreed that the aim that we are all striving here in Singapore is to enable our citizens to lead happier and fuller lives, to realize their full development as human beings. As I have said, Sir, the Budget debate presents us with an opportunity not only to reaffirm and to redefine our goals, our vision of the society that we have in mind, but also to see how far we have travelled along that road in the past year under review and to see whether we are any nearer this vision than we were this time last year when the Budget was presented. The Hon. Minister says in his statement, as evidence of the well-being of our people leading happier and more fuller lives that "real income went up by 8.5%." He says "Singaporeans did not suffer any cut in real income." Mr Speaker, Sir, as a piece of statistical information, of course, that may be correct. But does it tell the whole story? Does it look at the different income groups in our society and see whether this real income growth of 8.5% was true of all income groups and not just of one particular income group? I find, Mr Speaker, Sir, that the monetary wages for our manufacturing sector workmen, the productive labour force, went up by 14%.”
“- called its programme "Towards a Caring Society." Since then a number of people have taken up this cry of transforming our society into a caring society. It is not just the.Government, the Backbenchers, the Ministers but the private sector has also come in on this concept of a caring society. We do not want to take very much credit for all this sudden concern, although it needs repeating that the concept of this caring society was first propounded by this political party.”
“Then it was felt that the people were confusing in their minds the rugged society that the Government wanted for its citizens with a ragged society, and therefore there was the danger that what we were striving for would be thought to be a ragged society, and therefore talk of a rugged society was dropped. Mr Speaker, Sir, we have recently heard from the Government Benches, from Ministers and others a new goal of the society in our midst. We have heard a lot of talk quite recently of a caring society. But let it be whispered in this House that this conception of a caring society had its origin in 1976, not very long ago, when a political party - need I name it - in presenting its programme in 1976 - An hon. Member: Rumours!”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, as has been said by several hon. Members in this House tonight, the Hon. Minister who proposed this Budget Statement need have no qualms that the financial policy contained in his Budget Statement will find acceptance from almost all the Members of this House, regardless of what I do say about this financial policy and the Budget of the Government. Sir, the Hon. Minister reminds us at the beginning of his Budget Statement that the third part of his Statement deals with "the estimated expenditure incurred in achieving our social and economic objectives." It is as well to remind ourselves that when the Government puts forward its financial policy for the year that lies ahead and presents its Budget, it presents to the Members of this House, as representatives of the people whom we are privileged to represent, an opportunity to examine what the Hon. Minister has termed "our social objectives" and what I would, if I may term "our vision of the society that we desire for our people in Singapore." It presents us with an opportunity to redefine this vision, if any redefinition is needed, and to reaffirm our determination to achieve this vision of the society that we have in mind. It is therefore necessary to have in mind what is the vision or the goal that we are all, in this land of ours, striving to achieve. At one time, Mr Speaker, Sir, it was proclaimed that our goal was a rugged society. We heard a lot of talk that our society should become a rugged society.”
“Sir, will the Hon. Minister say whether public assistance grants are withdrawn at any time and, if so, under what guidelines are they withdrawn?”
“Were they not revised downwards from what they were? I am asking the Hon. Minister.”
“Is the Hon. Minister not aware that there was a downward revision when the Government first revised the public assistance rates?”
“Sir, could the Hon. Minister indicate what the figures were before the Government started its first revision?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, that is exactly my question. Would the Prime Minister say whether in his view there is not a confusion between two quite different matters: one is contempt of court and the other is whether a matter is sub judice or not?”
“I am indebted to the Hon. Prime Minister. It was not my intention to suggest that the purpose of the withdrawal should be suppressed from the court. Does not the Prime Minister think that there is some confusion in this Opinion between contempt of court and whether a matter is sub judice or not? I think there is some mixing of the two views which has led to some confusion.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I am again indebted to the Minister for his lengthy statement. But my question was whether he would refer this disparity between the Ministry of Finance and his Ministry to the Cabinet, and if he will not, why. The other question is: the Mihister says that the policy of the HDB is accepted by the majority of the sitting tenants. Has the Minister taken a census of the views of all these people?”
“Sir, I do not have the statistics for fires in HDB apartments but I do know that about two or three months ago there was a fire in my own constituency in Block 141. 1 would like to repeat the question: what plans does the Fire Service have for the prevention of fires in HDB apartments and for the evacuation of the tenants?”
“I am indebted to the Hon. Minister of State for his lengthy statement, but I am afraid he still has not answered my question. My question is, has the Fire Service any plans for HDB highrise apartments, particularly the evacuation of tenants in case of fire?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the Hon. Minister of State has outlined the plans the Fire Service has and the fire precautions for highrise commercial buildings. Would the Hon. Minister state whether the Fire Service has any plans for the evacuation of HDB flat dwellers, and what precautions have been taken in these highrise apartments to prevent the spread of fire?”
“I am indebted to you, Mr Speaker. The Road Traffic Act itself provides for owners to furnish information of drivers by letter, and I am not aware of the Police having encountered hundreds of cases of owners claiming, later on, that they did not write that letter. My real point is that in the normal course a statutory declaration must be stamped - I think the Hon. Minister misses that point - and that would mean an additional cost of $2. would the Minister consider exempting the statutory declaration from stamping?”
“But may I elaborate on what I said about the statutory declaration arising out of the reply given by the Hon. Minister?”
“So why the imposition of a statutory declaration at an additional cost of $2 to the owner?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, again I rise to ask the Minister by way of clarification two matters. I see by clause 4 that a new subsection is being added to the Act which provides that: 'No licensee shall collect any fees or charges for the use of any private parking place unless the fees or charges have first been approved by the Superintendent.' May I know what is the rationale for this amendment? Is it perhaps to provide that the licensee of any private parking place will not compete with the Government or the statutory board which provides parking places by charging less than what the Government or statutory board might charge? Why should there be a restriction on what fee the licensee should collect if it is his own land and which he wishes to utilize as a parking place for vehicles? I suspect it is perhaps that he should not compete with the Government in this business. Secondly, Mr Speaker, I am at a loss to understand why it is necessary for an owner to furnish, by way of a statutory declaration, to the Superintendent the name and address of the person in charge of the vehicle at the time the offence is committed? Statutory declarations have to be stamped if they are to be used in a court of law unless there is an exemption for this. That means whoever makes a declaration will have to pay a $2 fee for this statutory declaration. I would like to know why it is necessary that there should be a statutory declaration. Would it not be sufficient for the owner to give this information by way of a letter, i.e. give it in writing, and make it punishable if the information is false? I am sure it must be provided in the Act somewhere that whoever furnishes false information shall be subject to prosecution in court. That is sufficient sanction for an owner to give true information.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I merely rise to ask by way of clarification from the Hon. Minister as to what class of traffic that he proposes to prohibit or restrict from using the expressways.”
“Mr Speaker, I was not aware that I was talking about the treatment of our workers. I was talking about the income tax reliefs. I was not talking about punishment of our workers. I shall have quite a bit to say about it when we debate the Estimates for the Ministry of Labour. But at the moment I am only talking about the personal reliefs. I think the Minister is perhaps out of order when he says that I have been talking about our workers and their punishments and their conditions. I shall have quite a lot to say about it when the time comes.”
“Let us try and help people who need help. That should be the first principle of a socialist government, Mr Speaker, Sir. So I would say that I oppose this Bill, not in its entirety, but I certainly oppose the Bill as regards clauses 12 and 13. I have an amendment to one clause but I shall take it later.”